Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he was not eligible for a Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would achieve.

The complaint

1. Mr X applied to the Council for a Blue Badge. He complains the Council did not properly consider the information about his conditions during the Blue Badge assessment and decision-making process.
2. Mr X wants a review to be done by a different assessor, who will listen to what he says about his condition and the specific impacts it has on him from not having a Blue Badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the administration and enforcement of the scheme, including assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
8. Mr X was not receiving a benefit which would automatically make him eligible for a badge without further assessment. The Council was required to assess the information he provided about his conditions and mobility, to see if he was eligible for a badge after further assessment. To be eligible, Mr X needed to be found to have an enduring or substantial disability which caused him, during a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, or be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to others.
9. Mr X says that during its consideration of his application, including the in-person assessment, the Council did not listen to him or consider information about his conditions. Having a particular condition does not result in an applicant automatically being eligible for a Blue Badge. The scheme required the Council to assess whether Mr X’s application and documents showed his conditions had a sufficiently significant impact on his mobility for him to be eligible for a badge.
10. Officers assessed the supporting evidence Mr X submitted with his application and considered his comments, including information about his conditions, as well as mobility evidence from the in-person assessment. They refused him a badge because they considered the evidence showed Mr X was able to walk at a normal pace, with no significant pain or shortness of breath, for more than the minimum distance specified in the scheme’s criteria. In his appeal against the refusal, Mr X explained that Blue Badge parking bays give him the space to open his vehicle door fully, which he needs to do because of his leg condition The Council’s review panel considered Mr X’s review, including this issue. They determined it did not result in him qualifying for a badge as he could park where there was space to open his door as required and walk to his destination. The panel concluded Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria to qualify for a Blue Badge.
11. Officers considered the information in Mr X’s application and applied the relevant Blue Badge scheme criteria in making their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment process here to justify an investigation. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. Mr X received his final Blue Badge application decision in late January 2025. He can reapply after six months, which means he can make another application by the end of July 2025. If he considers there has been a significant worsening of his mobility since the January decision, he may make another application straight away. If he does this, he should send new evidence of this deterioration to the Council with his application. An investigation by us of the Council’s last assessment process would not provide Mr X with a worthwhile outcome, such as the reconsideration of his Blue Badge eligibility he seeks, which is not achievable through other means. He can achieve the equivalent of a reconsideration by reapplying to the Council, either now if his mobility has deteriorated, or by the end of July once six months have passed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• an investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman